<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (1) TMI 210 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337130</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI upheld the decision to enhance the value of &quot;iron buttons and fittings&quot; due to misdeclaration, rejecting the appellant&#039;s refund claim based on contemporaneous imports. The Tribunal emphasized that misdeclaration invalidates declared value, allowing authorities to enhance it. Legal precedents supported reliance on contemporaneous evidence over invoice figures. The appellant&#039;s failure to dispute misdeclaration led to the appeal&#039;s dismissal, affirming authorities&#039; discretion to reject undervalued declarations and uphold enhanced values. The appeal lacked merit, and the decision was in line with established legal principles and precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 08:54:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 210 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337130</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI upheld the decision to enhance the value of &quot;iron buttons and fittings&quot; due to misdeclaration, rejecting the appellant&#039;s refund claim based on contemporaneous imports. The Tribunal emphasized that misdeclaration invalidates declared value, allowing authorities to enhance it. Legal precedents supported reliance on contemporaneous evidence over invoice figures. The appellant&#039;s failure to dispute misdeclaration led to the appeal&#039;s dismissal, affirming authorities&#039; discretion to reject undervalued declarations and uphold enhanced values. The appeal lacked merit, and the decision was in line with established legal principles and precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>